Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 106‑R of 1975, decided on 28th January, 1976.
(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court. made on 3‑12‑1975 in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 46:9‑B of 1975).
----Ss. 497 & 499‑Bail‑Trial for offences under Ss. 323, 325 & 392, P. P. C.‑Record showing that despite lapse of more than eight months since registration of case, none of prosecution witnesses yet. Examined Accused ordered to be enlarged on bail.
Talaat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate and Mahmood A. Quraishi, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners.
M. Asif Jan, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) and Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 28th January, 1976.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal, and to dispose it of accordingly.
The two petitioners are facing prosecution under sections 323, 325 and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 34 thereof. They were allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, but the same has been cancelled by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated the 3rd of December, 1975.
It is submitted by Mr. Talaat Farooq Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is previous litigation between the parties, as admitted by the complainant himself in the first information report, that for this reason the petitioners have been falsely implicated, and, that in spite of the lapse of more than eight months since the case was registered against the petitioners, not a single prosecution witness has been examined at the trial. Learned counsel also submits that during the investigation two other persons also accused in the F. I. R. were found innocent, thus showing that the complainant had brought false allegations against innocent persons and he could not be relied upon even as against the petitioners.
It is hardly appropriate for us to comment at this stage on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, but we find that it is indeed correct that in spit of the lapse of more than eight months since the case was registered against the petitioners, not a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. On several dates the case had to be adjourned owing to the absence of the witnesses. In these circumstances, we would accept this appeal and direct that the petitioners be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with one surety in the like amount in each case to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer